Professor Kaukab Siddique of Lincoln University thinks the Jews have "taken over America" by "devious and immoral means."

M.A., Karachi University, Pakistan (1972),B.A. Honors, Karachi University, Pakistan (1975)
snip
Consider the case of Kaukab Siddique, professor of literature and communications at Lincoln University near Philadelphia. In a now widely broadcast video he stated to an approving crowd protesting near the White House:

For the Jews, I would say, see what could happen to you if the Muslims wake up. And I say to the Muslims, dear brothers and sisters, unite and rise up against this hydra-headed monster which calls itself Zionism. … It is obvious to us that Zionism is racism. … It is obvious to us that Zionism is genocide. It is obvious to us that Zionism is terrorism. But somehow the man living in the White House does not seem to know that. His silence is grim and dismal.

Years at Lincoln University: 18
Rank: Associate Professor
AREAS OF EXPERTISE: English and Journalism
Publications: Five books on Feminism in Islam
Recent Publication: MAN’S TWIN (Novel)
WORK IN PROGRESS: Manuscript of critical writing on media in the Post 9.11 era completed, titled RETURN TO PAKISTAN & PERSPECTIVES on TERRORISM
OTHER WRITING (Peer Related): Production of the HUMANITIES JOURNAL (two issues)
RADIO INTERVIEWS: Five Interviews with WOL RADIO 1450 and 1010 (covering Washington, DC and Baltimore) on media coverage of 9.11 and terrorism-related issues
RECENT CONFERENCE: WEBct Conference in San Diego (July 2003)
PRESENTATIONS: Average of Five Presentations every year on Feminism in South Asian and Middle eastern societies. Spoke at prestigious universities such as Cornell, Duke, Milwaukee, Montreal, Waterloo etc.
MOST RECENT PRESENTATION: On “Cultural Diversity and Muslim Immigrants in America” at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, November 2003.

Looks Amish to me.

megimoo

12-01-2010, 02:46 PM

And Bit More........

This is hardly new. What makes Siddique different are a series of discovered emails in which Siddique called the Holocaust a “hoax” and “invented,” and states that Jews have “taken over America” by “devious and immoral means.” Pennsylvania lawmakers registered their protest, and Lincoln University itself called Siddique’s views “offensive.”

In an interview with InsideHighered.com Siddique was questioned about his statements. He fell back on academic freedom, saying:

I’m not an expert on the Holocaust. If I deny or support it, it doesn’t mean anything.

He added with respect to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the firebombing of Dresden:

We can’t just sit back in judgment and say those guys were bad and we were the good guys. … I always try to look at both sides. … That’s part of being a professor.

The moral certainty that drives his criticism of Israel and Jews deserted him at a critical, if predictable, juncture.

More interesting than Siddique’s remarks were reactions from other academics. In the Chronicle of Higher Education, Cary Nelson — professor of English at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and president of the American Association of University Professors — suggests:

Siddique is walking a finer line. He is broaching Holocaust denial off-campus, while teaching in a discipline in which the Holocaust has definite relevance. His university has appropriately said he cannot be fired simply for his extramural statements. He could even repeat those statements in a public forum on campus and be protected. It is less clear, however, that he could declare the Holocaust a fiction in class. A key question is whether, in a field like Siddique’s, Holocaust denial merits a hearing before a committee of his peers. Is his professional fitness at issue?

For Nelson, if Siddique were an engineer, like the infamous Arthur Butz of Northwestern University, this would not be an issue.

Nelson phrases the matter as a question. Perhaps he is as repulsed as the rest of us. Indeed, he calls Siddique, rather delicately, a “deluded ideologue.” His problem is that he wishes to defend his profession and its workplace habits, including self-policing and privileged place above criticism in the face of something indefensible.

Nelson considers extramural Holocaust denial by a faculty member serious enough that it “may at least merit a university warning that he has put himself at risk.” Bravely he states: “The controversy over Siddique’s extracurricular remarks reminds us there is a bright line that must not be crossed.” On the other hand, the “Working Definition of Anti-Semitism,” issued by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, goes too far. Among other things, that document deems calling Israel a “Nazi state” is anti-Semitic, but Nelson dutifully defended sociologist William I. Robinson of the University of California, Santa Barbara, when he did so. Individuals demanding Israel be boycotted must also be defended, although Nelson adds that his organization opposes any such boycott.

But Nelson has his limits:

Faculty members cannot stand before a class and announce that the Nazis did not kill six million Jews, along with numerous homosexuals, Gypsies, disabled citizens, and political opponents. I would not knowingly hire a Holocaust denier or grant one tenure in a discipline to which the Holocaust is relevant. A college does not benefit from institutionalizing ignorance and hatred. … [Holocaust denial raises the question of a faculty member’s] overall professional competence — the capacity to weigh evidence, to undertake rational analysis, to perform academic responsibilities reliably.

Only toward the end of Nelson’s discussion does he state forthrightly:

[Holocaust denial is] also effectively hate speech, whatever the intent of the speaker. It denies people their history and obliterates the fate of their relatives on the basis of their religion and ethnicity.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/holocau...demic-freedom/

hampshirebrit

12-01-2010, 06:31 PM

[Holocaust denial is] also effectively hate speech, whatever the intent of the speaker. It denies people their history and obliterates the fate of their relatives on the basis of their religion and ethnicity.

This is or should be, an easy issue.

Classifying something, in fact, anything, as hate speech is a violation of 1A rights.

Any view, even one as repulsive as holocaust denial, deserves equal protection and equal right to be heard and discussed in public.

One could even argue, and I will, that a view so repulsive as holocaust denial should perhaps be granted enhanced protection... otherwise, how, if it cannot be discussed, can I ridicule it, how can it be tested in debate.

You deny not only the speaker his rights , but in potentia, also, those of the speaker's critics, when you suppress free speech.

By banning free expression of a view, you in fact risk granting that view a lease of life to which it may not be entitled.

Madisonian

12-01-2010, 08:48 PM

This is or should be, an easy issue.

Classifying something, in fact, anything, as hate speech is a violation of 1A rights.

Any view, even one as repulsive as holocaust denial, deserves equal protection and equal right to be heard and discussed in public.

One could even argue, and I will, that a view so repulsive as holocaust denial should perhaps be granted enhanced protection... otherwise, how, if it cannot be discussed, can I ridicule it, how can it be tested in debate.

You deny not only the speaker his rights , but in potentia, also, those of the speaker's critics, when you suppress free speech.

By banning free expression of a view, you in fact risk granting that view a lease of life to which it may not be entitled.

I agree with you to a point and it may be a fine point, but the Constitution guarantees a right to speak, not a right to be heard and certainly not a right to discuss in public should the public not want to listen. It further guarantees only that the government may not infringe upon it.
If a university wants to expel a faculty member for making statements it does not agree with or that can have a negative impact on it, they are fully within their rights to do so.

Phred Phelps and his Whackboro Baptist Church may have a right to hold signs that proclaim "God Hates Soldiers", but they do not have a right to do it on my front lawn.

hampshirebrit

12-01-2010, 08:58 PM

I agree with you to a point and it may be a fine point, but the Constitution guarantees a right to speak, not a right to be heard and certainly not a right to discuss in public should the public not want to listen. It further guarantees only that the government may not infringe upon it.
If a university wants to expel a faculty member for making statements it does not agree with or that can have a negative impact on it, they are fully within their rights to do so.

Indeed, and I would not disagree with you. Generally though, the point is that in public discourse, there must be freedom of speech, and not an obligation for anyone to listen to that speech.

Every privately owned or run organisation, including CU, may, and is entitled to, enforce its own rules on the matter. It is only in a fully public arena that the right of free speech has to be respected.

I think that how relatively regulated or not free speech is, and how well regulated, can be the measure of any privately run organisation. Compare us to DU, for example. I think we do a lot better than they do.

Molon Labe

12-01-2010, 09:45 PM

I agree with you to a point and it may be a fine point, but the Constitution guarantees a right to speak, not a right to be heard and certainly not a right to discuss in public should the public not want to listen. It further guarantees only that the government may not infringe upon it.
If a university wants to expel a faculty member for making statements it does not agree with or that can have a negative impact on it, they are fully within their rights to do so.

Phred Phelps and his Whackboro Baptist Church may have a right to hold signs that proclaim "God Hates Soldiers", but they do not have a right to do it on my front lawn.

That's why free speech and every other right stem basically from property rights.

namvet

12-01-2010, 10:20 PM

ive delt with these asshole Holocaust deniers before. saying the jews started WW2 its all they're fault and yada yada. some even showing how Hitler treated them fair and so on.

this is the reason Eisenhower had it all photographed and filmed. but they can't say this publicly in Germany. its at least a 5 years sentence in the gray bar motel.

noonwitch

12-02-2010, 09:57 AM

I think it's okay for a professor to discuss Holocaust deniers and their theories, but never to promote them as the truth to their students. Any professor who tries to do so deserves to be challenged by the students, and the students have the right to appeal to the university or college if that professor decides to retaliate using grades.

PoliCon

12-03-2010, 02:14 AM

proof of why tenure is a bad thing . . . .

John Marston

12-03-2010, 02:17 AM

If he's an American citizen, he has the right to say whatever he wants. But he does not have the right to avoid the consequences. If I was the President of the school, I would definitely let him go because I wouldn't want to be associated with a man like that

PoliCon

12-03-2010, 02:12 PM

If he's an American citizen, he has the right to say whatever he wants. But he does not have the right to avoid the consequences. If I was the President of the school, I would definitely let him go because I wouldn't want to be associated with a man like that

Trouble is the president will most likely support him being allowed to make that claim - but if the same prof said something nice about Bush his head would be forfeit. :rolleyes: